4 ms·

>We absolutely have to cut the corporate tax. Our current tax rate is about 38%. Even Germany has a 25% rate. This is so disingenuous; Germany also has a 19% V

>We absolutely have to cut the corporate tax. Our current tax rate is about 38%. Even Germany has a 25% rate. This is so disingenuous; Germany also has a 19% VAT, and also has stronger regulations on industry. >If we had a lower corporate tax rate with the ability to expense capital expenditures, guess what? We'd buy more triple sevens. He wants to be able to write off the purchase of planes as expenses? What? They already get to write off depreciation on planes, but you can't write off the whole plane because you can sell the damn thing after you buy it.

vaksel 18y ago
yeah regulation in europe is insane. You fire someone in Europe you have to continue paying their full salary for a whole year or until they get a new job. Here its wham bam thank you mam, don't forget your box and enjoy living on $1500 a month that you get from unemployment.
- vaksel 18y ago
  here is the reference http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7933596&story_id=12209771 http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displays... if links doesn't work the main pic: http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w39/Sacking.jpg http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w39/Sacking.jpg WTF with all the downvoting? First it was +5 now its 0. If you don't believe the post...google to find out if its true or not
  - ovi256 18y ago
    I downvoted you because I know you (and the Economist) are wrong. I'm in Paris, and I've seen downsizing at a startup. They've fired dozens of people with a week's notice, and 2 or 3 months severance pay, AS PER their contracts. It's NOT THE LAW that imposes this (the law imposes nil severance), but the contracts - they had this clause. Furthermore, severance pay is only due for termination that is outside the employee's control. That is, if the employer downsizes. If you don't come to work or hit you boss, you can be fired INSTANTLY with NO severence pay - like anywhere in the world. This is rare however, I've seen it only once for supposedly sub-par performance.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Very interesting. We always hear of standard benefits for workers in France, like extended yearly vacation time. How does that work? Is it possible that by working for a startup under a contract that your experience is different than the rest of your countrymen? Just trying to figure out the discrepancies.
      - davidw 18y ago
        Many European countries have tried to introduce different ways of being 'flexible'. Often there is a cutoff for company size, the age of the employee, that kind of thing. A small company may have less requirements in terms of hiring/firing. Also, in recent years, various countries have attempted to introduce different types of contracts. By way of example, Italy has 'standard' contracts, which are the 'real difficult to fire' kind, and the new flexible sort, which are meant to be used for more flexible positions. What has happened in practice is that newer workers, wherever possible, are hired up with the flexible contracts, which generally offer nothing in the way of severance pay or anything - less than you'd get in the US in most 'good' jobs. Older workers are hired with the standard contracts. This creates a two-tier system with lots of unhealthy side effects. I have no idea how the details work out in France.
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        We're seeing a similar system playing out over here in some union environments, specifically airline pilots. The "old guard" managed significant concessions from industry, but the newer guys end up with a much less competitive package. So you end up with a two-tiered situation. Doesn't seem like that is a healthy situation in general. Speaking of more complex ways of categorizing and rewarding business and employees reminds me of my recent interaction with a local government that had a "start-up" type program in place. I asked about office space and maybe some shared services -- something like an incubator. They were very friendly: I immediately received a 40-page packet by email which was so detailed as to be incomprehensible. (For instance, parking fees were waived up to a certain point, or alternatively fees could be reduced without a limit if I used an office that was farther away). It was like reading a report put together by every aspect of local government, each trying to help but actually making the presentation so complicated it would take an expert system to use or compare it to other offers.
- davidw 18y ago
  The reason I hate seeing politics here is that it's usually not up to the usual standards of discourse about hacking and startups. To use your post as an example, in a few brief lines, you sum up something where there is a glimmer of truth, but there is so much more to be said on the subject that what you have written is basically inaccurate. There are, in reality, three broad models in 'Europe'. The 'southern' model: Spain, and Italy (which I know quite well) don't give you a lot of government unemployment benefits, but it's very difficult to fire someone. France and Germany give you lots of benefits if you're fired, and it's also difficult. In Denmark, it's easier to fire people, but the obligation to care for fired employees is viewed as a collective one, payed for with taxes, rather than a burden that falls exclusively on the employer in question.
  - davidw 18y ago
    Actually, that's just one reason. Other problems include: * Attracting people who care more about talking about politics than other things, which creates a negative feedback loop. * 'Pack' voting down of whoever is currently unpopular with the current groupthink. This is reinforced by the people above.
- maurycy 18y ago
  In what country you have to continue paying full salary of a fired employee?
  - jwilliams 18y ago
    Switzerland is one example - it's not full salary, and there are some caps - but they are both very high (I think something like 80% and 200k respectively - it's been a while since I lived there). Sweden is another example, but I don't know the specifics. They do offer things like paid 18 months parental leave (yeap, both maternal and paternal).
- netcan 18y ago
  reference?
cperciva 18y ago
Germany also has a 19% VAT Companies don't pay VAT -- people do.
- joubert 18y ago
  Of course companies pay VAT, it is the input tax.
  - ckinnan 18y ago
    The VAT is directly passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
    - angstrom 18y ago
      In much the same way tax incidence passes corporate tax on to employees and customers.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
anamax 18y ago
> He wants to be able to write off the purchase of planes as expenses? What? They already get to write off depreciation on planes, Expenses are now, depreciation is later. And, if you get one, you don't get the other. I don't know how all the numbers work out, but it could easily be that the tax code encourages borrowing by corporations for things subject to significant depreciation terms. (Interest paid is an expense.) > but you can't write off the whole plane because you can sell the damn thing after you buy it. You just record such a sale against expenses, that is, "net everything". I do think that expenses should be tied to cash expenditures. So, if a company borrows to buy something, it should only be able to expense what it actually paid in any given year. Such treatment would make all expenditures "equal" in some sense.
- joubert 18y ago
  No, there is a distinction between cash flows, and income & expenses. An income or an expense does not require a cash flow, and a cash flow is not necessarily an income or an expense. Expenses should not be tied to cash layouts, because: (a) purchases are not necessarily expenses, but may be the buying of income-generating assets (i.e. expense is allocated over the life of the asset in the form of depreciation). (b) You can have an expense without laying out cash (e.g. an asset loses value such as a debtor defaulting).

vaksel 18y ago

yeah regulation in europe is insane. You fire someone in Europe you have to continue paying their full salary for a whole year or until they get a new job. Here its wham bam thank you mam, don't forget your box and enjoy living on $1500 a month that you get from unemployment.

vaksel 18y ago
here is the reference http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7933596&story_id=12209771 http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displays... if links doesn't work the main pic: http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w39/Sacking.jpg http://media.economist.com/images/na/2008w39/Sacking.jpg WTF with all the downvoting? First it was +5 now its 0. If you don't believe the post...google to find out if its true or not
- ovi256 18y ago
  I downvoted you because I know you (and the Economist) are wrong. I'm in Paris, and I've seen downsizing at a startup. They've fired dozens of people with a week's notice, and 2 or 3 months severance pay, AS PER their contracts. It's NOT THE LAW that imposes this (the law imposes nil severance), but the contracts - they had this clause. Furthermore, severance pay is only due for termination that is outside the employee's control. That is, if the employer downsizes. If you don't come to work or hit you boss, you can be fired INSTANTLY with NO severence pay - like anywhere in the world. This is rare however, I've seen it only once for supposedly sub-par performance.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Very interesting. We always hear of standard benefits for workers in France, like extended yearly vacation time. How does that work? Is it possible that by working for a startup under a contract that your experience is different than the rest of your countrymen? Just trying to figure out the discrepancies.
    - davidw 18y ago
      Many European countries have tried to introduce different ways of being 'flexible'. Often there is a cutoff for company size, the age of the employee, that kind of thing. A small company may have less requirements in terms of hiring/firing. Also, in recent years, various countries have attempted to introduce different types of contracts. By way of example, Italy has 'standard' contracts, which are the 'real difficult to fire' kind, and the new flexible sort, which are meant to be used for more flexible positions. What has happened in practice is that newer workers, wherever possible, are hired up with the flexible contracts, which generally offer nothing in the way of severance pay or anything - less than you'd get in the US in most 'good' jobs. Older workers are hired with the standard contracts. This creates a two-tier system with lots of unhealthy side effects. I have no idea how the details work out in France.
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        We're seeing a similar system playing out over here in some union environments, specifically airline pilots. The "old guard" managed significant concessions from industry, but the newer guys end up with a much less competitive package. So you end up with a two-tiered situation. Doesn't seem like that is a healthy situation in general. Speaking of more complex ways of categorizing and rewarding business and employees reminds me of my recent interaction with a local government that had a "start-up" type program in place. I asked about office space and maybe some shared services -- something like an incubator. They were very friendly: I immediately received a 40-page packet by email which was so detailed as to be incomprehensible. (For instance, parking fees were waived up to a certain point, or alternatively fees could be reduced without a limit if I used an office that was farther away). It was like reading a report put together by every aspect of local government, each trying to help but actually making the presentation so complicated it would take an expert system to use or compare it to other offers.
davidw 18y ago
The reason I hate seeing politics here is that it's usually not up to the usual standards of discourse about hacking and startups. To use your post as an example, in a few brief lines, you sum up something where there is a glimmer of truth, but there is so much more to be said on the subject that what you have written is basically inaccurate. There are, in reality, three broad models in 'Europe'. The 'southern' model: Spain, and Italy (which I know quite well) don't give you a lot of government unemployment benefits, but it's very difficult to fire someone. France and Germany give you lots of benefits if you're fired, and it's also difficult. In Denmark, it's easier to fire people, but the obligation to care for fired employees is viewed as a collective one, payed for with taxes, rather than a burden that falls exclusively on the employer in question.
- davidw 18y ago
  Actually, that's just one reason. Other problems include: * Attracting people who care more about talking about politics than other things, which creates a negative feedback loop. * 'Pack' voting down of whoever is currently unpopular with the current groupthink. This is reinforced by the people above.
maurycy 18y ago
In what country you have to continue paying full salary of a fired employee?
- jwilliams 18y ago
  Switzerland is one example - it's not full salary, and there are some caps - but they are both very high (I think something like 80% and 200k respectively - it's been a while since I lived there). Sweden is another example, but I don't know the specifics. They do offer things like paid 18 months parental leave (yeap, both maternal and paternal).
netcan 18y ago
reference?

cperciva 18y ago

Germany also has a 19% VAT Companies don't pay VAT -- people do.

joubert 18y ago
Of course companies pay VAT, it is the input tax.
- ckinnan 18y ago
  The VAT is directly passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
  - angstrom 18y ago
    In much the same way tax incidence passes corporate tax on to employees and customers.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

anamax 18y ago

> He wants to be able to write off the purchase of planes as expenses? What? They already get to write off depreciation on planes, Expenses are now, depreciation is later. And, if you get one, you don't get the other. I don't know how all the numbers work out, but it could easily be that the tax code encourages borrowing by corporations for things subject to significant depreciation terms. (Interest paid is an expense.) > but you can't write off the whole plane because you can sell the damn thing after you buy it. You just record such a sale against expenses, that is, "net everything". I do think that expenses should be tied to cash expenditures. So, if a company borrows to buy something, it should only be able to expense what it actually paid in any given year. Such treatment would make all expenditures "equal" in some sense.

joubert 18y ago
No, there is a distinction between cash flows, and income & expenses. An income or an expense does not require a cash flow, and a cash flow is not necessarily an income or an expense. Expenses should not be tied to cash layouts, because: (a) purchases are not necessarily expenses, but may be the buying of income-generating assets (i.e. expense is allocated over the life of the asset in the form of depreciation). (b) You can have an expense without laying out cash (e.g. an asset loses value such as a debtor defaulting).